2. Overview of coral reefs in the world
2.3. Existing efforts to protect coral reefs
Figure 7: The calcareous shell of a sea butterfly was placed in seawater with increased acidity. The timeframe between the first and last image is 45 days.88
In summary, a warming climate and changing ocean chemistry are among the two most significant secondary consequences of human activities affecting coral reef ecosystems. In order to curtail the cumulative impact of local and global threats, a parallel approach needs to be implemented to protect the future of coral reefs. The next section will thus identify the existing theories and measures in place to safeguard coral reefs.
2.3. Existing efforts to protect coral reefs
There exists a broad range of reef protection approaches aimed at supporting reef health and resilience. Despite the challengers enumerated above, it is possible for live sustainably alongside coral reefs and to derive substantial benefits from them. This section illustrates existing reef management approaches, commencing from the
86 Long Cao et al., 2007, ‘Effects of carbon dioxide and climate change on ocean acidification and carbonate mineral saturation,’ Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, Issue 5, March 2007, p. 1.
87 Teach Ocean Science, ‘Coral Reefs and Climate Change.’ Accessed 23 March 2017.
http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teaching_resources/education_modules/coral_reefs_and_climate_ch ange/how_does_climate_change_affect_coral_reefs/
88 Jennifer S. Holland, 2007, ‘Acid Threat,’ National Geographic, Nov. 2007. Photograph by David Liittschwager. Accessed 23 March 2017. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/11/marine-miniatures/acid-threat-text
establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) and locally managed marine areas (LMMAs). Then, attention will be drawn to international collaboration efforts to protect coral reefs.
The need for a global representative system or network to manage marine areas was recognised as early as 1988, at the 17th IUCN general Assembly in San José, Costa Rica, and then again at the Fourth World Parks Congress in Caracas, Venezuela in 1992.89 In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development called for the
“establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012.” According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, MPAs are defined as an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means (IUCN, 1994). In order for an area to be regarded as an MPA, it must aim to achieve specific conservation objectives, although it may have additional targets such as promoting education or research or be associated with sustaining cultural values.90 At the most fundamental level, MPAs can be classified into three types: (i) those that are entirely marine, containing subtidal and intertidal but no terrestrial habitat; (ii) those that contain terrestrial, intertidal and subtidal components; and (iii) those that contain terrestrial and intertidal ecosystems only, with no subtidal waters.91 In order to facilitate the comprehension of these classifications, Figure 8 presented below offers a visualization of the tidal zones. Moreover, as MPAs have come to cover a diverse range of tools and management frameworks, the World Bank has put forward a typology of marine management [Table 1]. The allocation of each MPA to a certain category that best distinguishes its primary function then facilitates inventory of coastal and marine management alternatives, making it possible to conduct an assessment of MPAs on a global scale. Categorization also helps identify differences and similarities within the overall system, including an estimate of MPA effectiveness.
89 UNEP-WCMC, 2008, ‘National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: a Review of Progress,’ p. 13. Accessed 23 March 2017.
https://archive.org/stream/nationalregional08well#page/12/mode/2up
90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.
Marine protected areas encompass about 27 percent of the world’s reefs.92 This coverage includes both MPAs and locally managed marine areas, as well as sites where management is tasked to control a single or more types of threat.93 In general, MPAs have come to cover a diverse repertoire of uses and purposes, ranging from biodiversity conservation goals, fishery goals, to social goals such as food supply, economic vitality, aesthetics, and religious/spiritual fulfilment.94 The effectiveness of an MPA, too, differs in scale and intensity. On the one hand, it includes areas with comprehensive management and protection strategies targeting multiple activities and threats, such as fishing, pollution, and coastal development; on the other hand, it extends to sites with just a few restrictions on harmful activities without a strict legal framework.95 Indeed, the effectiveness of MPAs are not distributed evenly across the globe. Nevertheless, these sites serve as a significant step into coral reef preservation, on the basis of which a future, more effective framework may be built.
Table 1: Typology of marine management areas, World Bank96
Category Title Description
Access to sea space and resources is carefully controlled and limited
Protection of diversity is not the main focus
94 The World Bank, 2006, ‘Scaling Up Marine Management: The Role of Marine Protected Areas,’
Report No, 36635 – GLB, p. 8.
95 Burke 2012:34.
96 The World Bank 2006:9-10.
Figure 8: Tidal zones. One way in which MPAs are generally classified is according to the tidal zones, i.e. the inclusion of terrestrial, intertidal and subtidal components.97
There are numerous benefits and limitations of MPAs. As coral reefs worldwide are deteriorating on a mass scale in large part due to overfishing, protected areas endeavour to reduce this pressure and contribute to ecosystem-based management of fisheries. For instance, assigning no-take zones (where no extractive activity is allowed) to key areas, such as spawning, nursery, feeding, or sheltering habitats, gives fish species the opportunity to rebound. What is more, studies have shown that organisms within MPAs tend to grow larger and live longer than in adjacent unprotected areas, which in turn affects their reproduction – larger and older fish tend to produce significantly more eggs and larvae than their smaller counterparts, and these larvae tend to grow faster and have a higher survival rate than larvae from younger females.98 This results not only in an increase in population inside the reserve itself, but also a spill-over of juvenile and adult species to nearby areas and an export of eggs and larvae.99 Despite these benefits, the costs of creating a no-take zone may be high for certain coastal communities which depend on the area for sustenance and/or employment.
Furthermore, the displacement of fisheries may have negative consequences on another marine area unprotected by a reserve, thus simply moving the problem rather than curbing it. On the other hand, fisheries may stand to benefit from MPAs provided that the numbers of fish transported outside the no-take zone from spill-over and export of
97 Illustrated by Soren Henrich in ‘British Columbia's Natural Legacy.’ Accessed 19 March 2017.
http://www.biodiversitybc.org/EN/main/downloads/tnp-2.html
98 Robert C. Francis et al., 2007, ‘Ten Commandments for Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Scientists,’
Fisheries, Vol. 32, No. 5, May 2007, p. 221.
99 National Marine Protected Areas Center, “Do ‘No-Take’ Marine Reserves Benefit Adjacent Fisheries?” MPA Science Brief, p. 2. Accessed 23 March 2017. http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov.
eggs and larvae are greater than before the area’s closure.100 Overall, MPAs which implement and monitor fishing regulations such as safe catch limits or prevent destructive fishing practices are valuable in sustaining the coral reef ecosystem and seafloor.
MPAs also play a major role in educating local communities and visitors about the importance of coral reefs. Spreading public awareness and stimulating discussion of reef issues is crucial to encourage key decision-makers and stakeholders to take steps to protect them. MPAs are also a prime location to conduct scientific research and field surveys, especially as the marine biota within protected zones is not disturbed by human activities to the same extent as beyond them. The opportunity to study in such surroundings also serves as a chance to improve the current protected areas through a more informed outlook on marine environments and resources, thus contributing to efficient reef management in the long run.101
Finally, type ii and iii MPAs (that contain terrestrial, intertidal and subtidal components or that contain terrestrial and intertidal ecosystems only, with no subtidal waters)102 that extend into terrestrial areas may provide additional benefits, including limiting coastal development or land-based pollution. Including MPAs in integrated coastal management may also result in greater coordination for the dual protection of coastal and reef resources. This may, however, prove to be difficult due to, inter alia, a limited allocation of funds, inadequate administration, ineffective implementation or lack of proper regulations, and insufficient participation by the local community due to a lack of information or incentives.
Unsustainable funding is not just a local problem, but a global challenge. A survey evaluating the running costs of a global MPA network that meets the target of conserving 20-30 percent of the world’s seas are estimated at US$5-19 billion annually.103 What is more, there is no guarantee that such MPAs would be managed effectively. Currently, MPAs in Southeast Asia barely cover 11,650 km2 out of 69,640
100 Ibid.
101 ‘The Benefits of Marine Protected Areas,’ 2003, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, p. 17.
102 UNEP-WCMC 2008:13.
103 Andrew Balmford et al., 2004, ‘The worldwide costs of marine protected areas,’ PNAS, Vol. 101, No. 25, June 2004, pp. 9694-9697. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403239101. Accessed 23 March 2017.
km2 of the total reef area, and 69 percent of the coverage is labelled as ‘ineffective’.104 In comparison, Australia’s MPAs cover 31,650 km2 out of 42,310 km2 of the total reef area, with only four percent regarded as ‘ineffective’.105 Thus, the implementation of MPA is meaningless if not properly controlled and monitored, with proper training of staff. Also, certain regulations, even if fully and effectively implemented, may not be sufficient to address the existing threats. For instance, a site that forbids trapping a certain species but does not prohibit its capture through other means will have little to no impact on its preservation. Moreover, MPAs are often placed in remote areas, rather than in locations where threats to reefs are the greatest. Such zones may serve as potential regional strongholds, refuges, and seeding grounds for recovery, but otherwise do little to reduce the current threats facing the coral reef ecosystems.106
In general, MPAs were established to limit anthropogenic pressures at particular locations. They are commonly managed by all levels of government, which may be one source of their widespread management failure. In response to these top-down, centralised operations of MPAs, and facilitated by an increasing trend towards ownership of marine resources at local levels, locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) were coined.107 Simply put, LMMAs are marine areas that are largely or wholly managed by individuals or groups at the local level for the purpose of sustainable use, rather than with conservation in mind.108 This latter point in particular raised questions whether LMMAs may be qualified as protected areas and thereby count towards international biodiversity targets, as such areas must aim to achieve specific conservation objectives.109 Nevertheless, due to their similarities with MPAs, such as creating no-take zones or wider areas of restricted use, LMMAs are usually integrated under the MPA designation. What is more, a network or LMMAs across multiple locations and communities yields multiple benefits not only comparable to, but going beyond MPAs. For instance, the local nature of the reserves permits a rapid transmission of ideas between neighbouring communities and facilitates the
104 Burke 2012:35.
105 Ibid.
106 Burke 2012:36.
107 Steve Rocliffe et al., 2014, ‘Towards a Network of Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) in the Western Indian Ocean,’ July 2014. PLoS ONE 9(7): e103000. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103000.
Accessed 24 March 2017.
108 Burke 2012:34.
109 Ibid.
making process. What is more, as local communities which are based nearby are the primary decision-makers, this may result in more accurate location markers of protect areas and objectives that are realistically attainable. Overall, local communities that are increasingly assuming responsibility for marine resources and establishing LMMAs may be one step away from scaling-up towards a network that is lasting, effective, and representative, and one that goes in line with centralised systematic conservation efforts.110
Beyond marine managed areas, there exist other reef protection approaches and management measures. For instance, mangrove rehabilitation initiatives play a critical role in improving coastal protection and reef conservation. Mangrove forests act as a natural buffer and help shelter coastal coral reefs by trapping sediments, dissolving nutrients from the water, and removing a fraction of the riverine inflow of mud.111 Due to anthropogenic and natural occurrences, such as deforestation to make way for shrimp farms and tropical storms, respectively, mangrove forests are a threated global ecosystem. In Asia alone, 36 percent of mangrove area has been deforested.112 Thus, mangrove restoration projects are a crucial extension of sustaining the coral reef ecosystem and securing its biodiversity. Restoring riparian vegetation is one of many current measures to improve reef protection; measures from other fronts are equally important. This includes, inter alia, controls on ballast discharge from ships, designating safe shipping lanes and boating areas, improving agriculture, livestock, and mining practices, and developing tourism in sustainable ways. 113 Significantly, mitigating local threats may help ‘buy time’ for reefs until global threats can be curbed.
Indeed, collaboration at a global scale is paramount to reducing pressures on reefs. Currently, international agreements such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) are examples of transboundary collaboration to reduce pollution and regulate fishing. Similarly, major wild-life treaties have activities and/or programmes dedicated to the reefs. For instance, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) protects many corals and species that live in the reefs; the
110 Ibid.
111 Rongo 2007:600.
112 Edward B. Barbier, 2006, ‘Natural Barriers to Natural Disasters: Replanting Mangroves after the Tsunami,’ Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 4, No. 3, April 2006, p. 124.
113 Burke 2012:38-39.
Convention on Migratory Species protects various reef-dependent species; and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands promulgates the protection of valuable wetlands, including coral reef ecosystems.114 In addition, international recognition and national pride are also key incentives in protecting ecosystems. The inclusion of Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage List is a case in point: obtaining the World Heritage Site status in 1981 as “the most impressive marine area in the world”115 produced many benefits for Australia and the local communities. This includes increased tourism from overseas and within Australia due to promotional features and media attention, which translates into increased employment opportunities and income for local communities.
Economically speaking, the GBR’s environment helps bring billions of dollars to the country’s economy each year and supports almost 70,000 jobs.116 Furthermore, an increased sense of local and national pride in the area- as well as financial developments- all promote the mutual interest and responsibility to protect the GBR.
International cooperation is thus crucial in gaining support and creating incentives on all scales to protect and manage coral reef ecosystems.
In conclusion, although threats to coral reefs are growing, efforts to reduce some pressures are also on the rise. MPA coverage is growing, with plans to include more reef zones and habitats. Local control is also gaining traction through LMMAs, ecosystem-based management is spreading amongst fisheries and other stakeholders, and lastly, international agreements and policies provide further tools for protecting coral reefs. Yet, the combined pressure of local and global threats remains an intensifying threat, already having impacted the majority of reefs in most regions. Local threats in particular can and must be tackled head-on with direct management interventions, the success of which will increase reef resilience and integrity against the more challenging global threats.
114 Robert Hepworth, 2003, ‘Saving coral reefs through international alliances,’ Synergies, Issue 7, January 2003, p. 1.
115 Ben Daley, 2014, The Great Barrier Reef: An Environmental History, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, p.x.
116 ‘Economic Contribution of the Great Barrier Reef.’ Accessed 14 January 2016.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/